Strategy and Partnerships: The Role of Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers from diverse disciplines have claimed that organizations partner for strategic reasons, and that sustainability is a strategic opportunity. Literature on strategy, partnerships and sustainability is sparse; and the strategic engagement of organizations in partnerships has been mostly assessed qualitatively. The aim of this research is to determine if structures, a key component of strategy, are implemented within partner organizations, whether they have an effect on the achievement of strategic goals, and if highly structured organizations achieve highly valued outcomes. This research collects data through a survey of 224 multi-sectoral organizations partnering in large cross-sector partnerships for the sustainability of Barcelona (Spain), Bristol (UK), Gwangju (South Korea), and Montreal (Canada) (response rate: 26%, valid, unbiased, reliability > 70%). Quantitative analysis shows that organizations implement structures when partnering for sustainability, concluding that sustainability partnerships are strategic for organizations. However, structures do not affect the relationships between goals and outcomes, and being highly structured is not imperative for achieving valuable outcomes. This research contributes towards understanding the strategic engagement of organizations in partnerships, presenting results on the implementation of structures for partnering and their effect for achieving outcomes, contributing to the strategy and partnerships literature, and to practitioners leading sustainability partnerships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".